Iran and US Clash Over Details of Proposed Deal to End War

After weeks of military tension between the United States and Iran in the Middle East, both sides have reported progress toward an agreement to end hostilities—while simultaneously releasing conflicting accounts of what that agreement actually contains. US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he had called off planned new military strikes on Iran because a deal was imminent, and suggested it could be signed in Europe as soon as this weekend.

Shortly afterward, Iranian media published details of a purported negotiating draft based on a previously known 14-point Iranian proposal. According to this account, Iran would retain the right to enrich uranium and maintain control over shipping through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz—two central sticking points that, from a Western perspective, could be seen as significant concessions to Tehran.

Trump reacted angrily. In a post on his Truth Social platform, he wrote that the terms Iran had made public had 'nothing to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing.' He characterized Iran's version as false and accused Tehran's negotiators of acting in bad faith, warning that Iran needed to 'get their act together, and fast.'

Iranian officials, for their part, sought to temper expectations without declaring the talks a failure. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that a deal with the United States had 'never been closer,' while cautioning against speculation about an imminent signing. According to Iranian state media, the current draft is under review by the country's highest leadership, and no final decision has yet been made.

Observers note that this exchange reflects a deep-rooted mutual distrust between Washington and Tehran that has complicated diplomatic efforts for decades. A France 24 correspondent described Iran's cautious response as evidence of this 'deep mistrust' toward the United States. Similar patterns have emerged in previous rounds of talks, with public announcements of progress often followed by retractions or conflicting interpretations of what each side had actually conceded.

It remains unclear exactly what was formally agreed in writing between the two delegations, and what specific concessions were genuinely on the table. Some reports suggest the release of frozen Iranian assets is also part of the discussions. Trump has additionally accused Iran of attempting to attack Indian ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a claim that has not been independently verified.

Analysts from different regions offer varying assessments of the state of negotiations. While some describe 'substantial development,' others maintain that a fully finalized agreement remains out of reach. Several reports suggest that the terms outlined by Iran would grant Tehran much of what it has sought, while the United States would receive comparatively little of what Trump initially demanded.

Whether and when a formal agreement will actually be signed remains uncertain. The coming days may reveal whether both sides can reconcile their differing accounts of the deal or whether the public contradictions will further strain negotiations. Given the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz to global energy trade, the outcome of these talks is likely to draw attention well beyond the region itself.